Your answer would be false
Explanation:
Ethical doubts about genetic engineering motivate a view that many philosophers favour: that genetic therapy to eliminate disease and disability is ethically acceptable, given that the risks can be overcome.
But genetic enhancement is ethically problematic. The line between enhancement and therapy is difficult to draw.
Studies show people who are physically attractive are likely to earn more than those considered to have below-average looks. Does this mean “ugliness” is a disability that ought to be corrected by genetic engineering?
Or, similarly, is having a below-average IQ a disability, something that should be subject to change through gene-editing?
1.punctuality
2.responsibility
3.self-reliance
4.confidence
5.presence of mind
Stuff like this is what gets you banned.
Rohypnol users often describe its effects as “paralyzing.” The effects start twenty to thirty minutes after taking the drug, peak within two hours and may persist for eight or even twelve hours. A person can be so incapacitated (made unable to act) they collapse. They lie on the floor, eyes open, able to observe events but completely unable to move. Afterwards, memory is impaired and they cannot recall any of what happened.
The person experiences loss of muscle control, confusion, drowsiness and amnesia.
